Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
ABSTRACT
Complexity of military combat modeling is being highlighted by a review using Lanchester equations in order to determine
damage/coverage of weapon. This in turn was used as a measure of capability/implementability. Some concepts in reliability
have been adopted and applied to a class of problems found in a system whose component items have chain link. The
proportion of available logistics items needed to execute projects/programmeswas used,in recent application concept, to obtain
the Availability Capability (AC) via reliability, and the Implementability or Delivery Capability (Damage Coverage) (DC) via
mean Time To Failure (MTTF). A military formation, DC was found to be 30.9, which yielded Percentage implementability.
Keywords:- Projects, Reliability, Mean Time to Failure, Implementability, Availability, Delivery, Damage, Capability,
Coverage, Logistics.
1.INTRODUCTION
The modeling and analysis of military combat using differential equations (DE) were rigorously, and exhaustively
handled by Taylor (1973), (1974) and (1975). Some of the results obtained are being given below.
1. Lanchester Fundamental Duel (One-on-One)
Deterministic Linear (Ancient) Law DE:
=-r ,
= b ; is the Blue strength or forcelevel.
= - b,
= r, is the Red strength or force level.
=-r ,
= b ; is the Blue strength or force level.
= - b,
= r, is the Red strength or force level.
Where b is number of Blue units remaining at time t ( at t = 0, b = B) r = is number of Red units remaining at time t
( at t = 0, r = R) is the rate at which single Blue unit Kills Red units. is the rate at which single Red unit kills Blue
units. The time independent solution of this system, Taylor (Taylor J, 1974) is given by ( B2 b2) = (R2 r2) If is
the Blue attrition rate of single round (bullet), and
is rate of fire of each weapon then the overall Blue attrition rate
=
, and similarly for Red =
Using the Principle of War based on (encourages) Rapid Fire or High
Attrition the optional solutions, Taylor [13] are given by
a.
Blue Force wires
b.
Red Force wires
c.
=-
,=
Where Ar, Ab = areas where Red and Blue forces are located respectively.
Aer ,Aeb = areas of effectiveness of a single shot from Red and Blue respectively.
fr, fb = rates of fire of Red and Blue weapons respectively.
Page 10
The notion of square is derived from the dependence on the squares of the quantities (ORBAT/Logistics) or distribution
of fire over the areas. The solution obtained by this square law is based on the Principle of War Concentration of
Force. The time independent solution of this system, Taylor (1974) is given by
Kb (B b) = Kr (R r) At the
instance of supporting fire units, e.g. Artillery , the DE describing the engagements are:
= - (1 - )
= -
- r
- r
= - (1 - )
= -
- b1
- b1
2.METHODOLOGY
Using reliability theory and Spectral analysis models were derived for forecasting damage coverage (delivery capability)
and hence determine implementability of chosen project. Number Cruncher Statistical (NCS) package was used to
obtain Fourier Analysis Model using derived coefficients an and bn that are significant. Thereafter, used these models
to forecast output, damage coverage, and ultimately the implementability of project/programs. For every component
item calculate the proportion p, and the percentage of the items available, then compute the various Availability
Capability (AC) and then the Fourier Analysis and Regression models would be derived for forecasting target hit and
damage outcomes. The result obtained would be used to determine the delivery capability/Implementability.
Availability Capacity
Series system:
AC =
=
,
where t, time to failure is exponentially distributed.
Parallel system:
AC
=
=
components have same reliability
= 1- [1 e-t]n, constant failure rates
Page 11
Delivery Capability
Series system: DC
Page 12
NAF10/R30
NDAn/Rn
9
21
17
12
30
0.3000
0.7000
0.5667
0.4000
0.999
0.557
0.027
0.287
0.610
0.033
0.1671
0.0189
0.1626
0.244
0.0330
1.5039
0.3969
2.7649
2.9280
0.9890
312
324
336
348
360
1.18116
0.311725
2.171547
2.299646
0.776759
= Iw
Page 13
equation/model.
RSEk =
for a season.
Wavelengt
h
Period
Cosine(a's
)
Sine(b's)
0.307178
20.45455
15.20152
-1.958461
-1.591235
0.4049164
15.51724
2.104604
-0.8883041
-0.304122
0.5026549
12.5
12.30483
-1.828336
-1.345892
0.6003932
10.46512
8.176512
-0.2259184
-1.836826
0.6981317
2.945911
-4.26E-02
-1.110029
0.7958701
7.894737
4.706373
0.2155723
-1.387418
0.8936086
7.03125
5.07279
1.153949
0.991347
6.338028
0.8317432
1.089085
5.769231
1.895862
0.155545
9
-0.890667
0.319906
1
1.186824
5.294117
2.793575
1.008405
-7.97E-02
0.391522
5
1.284562
4.891304
5.023153
0.1769834
1.439712
1.382301
4.545455
8.080674
-1.068588
1.497647
1.480039
4.245283
14.59759
-2.46174
-0.23337
1.577778
3.982301
9.859504
1.95E-02
1.675516
3.75
3.254531
0.8742769
1.773255
3.543307
4.16041
-1.268177
-2.032131
0.773882
9
0.366655
6
1.870993
3.358209
1.485811
-0.5866731
-0.527437
1.968731
3.191489
-0.4590535
-0.632974
2.06647
3.04054
1.459578
0.306285
6
0.2882544
-0.212617
2.164208
2.903226
2.214139
-0.9629127
1.60E-02
45.85969
30.974533
9
10.224411
3
13.070319
2
4.6678125
7
4.5853993
5
0.9622244
1
6.9559224
5
2.261947
2.777778
6.337994
8.43E-02
-1.62719
19.911406
2.359685
2.662722
4.295391
1.338243
2.457424
2.556818
1.570526
0.3266777
9.14E-02
0.742389
5
2.555162
2.459016
3.513019
-0.2167711
2.6529
2.368421
6.388424
-1.61436
1.193541
0.264232
9
2.750639
2.284264
-0.5014824
-0.956081
2.848377
2.205882
2.782605
0.510613
6
13.494368
4.9339536
7
11.036473
7
20.069829
3
8.7418117
7
-6.81E-02
-0.457431
1.6041399
0.2424829
I
47.756987
4
6.6118068
3
38.656783
5
25.687266
6
9.2548566
9
14.785500
9
15.936639
7
5.9560249
8
0.4886620
4
8.7762788
4
15.780703
3
25.386201
4
RSE
Spectrum
2.98481171
0.41323792
7
2.41604897
1
1.60545416
1
0.57842854
3
0.92409380
8
0.99603997
8
0.37225156
1
0.03054137
7
0.54851742
8
0.98629395
3
1.58663758
6
2.86623062
7
1.93590836
8
0.63902570
7
0.81689495
3
0.29173828
6
8.65306
-1.52406
7.204719
-0.4652
10.24067
-1.32145
5.561211
-7.10635
3.826142
-13.5716
4.889582
4.2867
3.484326
0.863158
1.025704
0.447556
1.47456
0.125953
3.908364
0.543946
6.551914
5.572805
11.33913
-1.4848
12.22855
-1.16431
6.557017
99.12105
3.707471
0.730919
2.82311
-0.64415
1.472694
0.882931
8
-0.49728
1.260212
0.208632
4.276066
-0.45149
5.316692
14.76196
2.932959
0.630228
2.541772
0.943964
4.950722
-3.18206
4.585515
-0.777
1.646609
-1.0895
1.053444
-1.47156
0.28658746
0.06013902
6
0.43474515
3
1.24446287
3
0.84339800
2
0.30837210
4
0.68977960
7
1.25436432
9
0.54636323
6
0.10025874
4
-0.6243
Page 14
2.132701
1.596275
0.6815157
-0.451866
3.043854
2.06422
4.760706
0.2481965
1.390165
5.0148462
7
14.956201
7
3.141593
7.925162
-1.822
9.68E-14
24.89763
0.31342789
2
0.93476260
8
1.55610187
5
0.459898
6.342934
3.76622
6.342934
-0.85406
Y'
11
1.404065
5.395664
23
-0.82755
-3.18018
-0.10182
-0.39128
27
0.980009
3.766064
16
1.466358
5.635049
10
-1.14322
-4.39327
-0.83558
-3.21104
0.522388
2.007478
26
0.190881
0.733534
12
-1.39531
-5.36202
Test of
Significance as coefficients of model which lead to acceptance or otherwise. The spectral analysis
model of example 1, a single firer, is given by this formula Y =
+
cos n
Because the Fourier Analysis Model does not give accurate forecasts other models must be found for the same exercise.
The models considered were:
a. Linear, Y11= -0.957 + 0.199X
b. Logarithnmic, Y1g = - 3.72 + 2.390 In(X)
c. Y1q = -0.959 + 0.258X 0.002X2
TABLE 4 : Regression Forecasts (Using the formulae)
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
10
14
12
22
19
3
6
1.033
1.829
1.431
3.421
2.824
-0.36
0.237
1.783178
2.587347
2.218927
3.667591
3.317209
-1.09432
0.562305
1.421
2.261
1.849
3.749
3.221
-0.203
0.517
Page 15
X
15
4
2
13
9
11
23
19
6
5
27
8
25
16
10
14
12
22
19
3
6
YIL
2.028
-0.161
3.023
1.63
0.834
1.232
3.62
2.824
0.237
0.038
4.416
0.635
4.018
2.227
1.033
1.829
1.431
3.421
2.824
-0.36
0.237
Yig
2.75224
-0.40676
3.4398
2.410229
1.531367
2.01097
3.773831
3.317209
0.562305
0.126557
4.15705
1.249865
3.973113
2.906487
1.783178
2.587347
2.218927
3.667591
3.317209
-1.09432
0.562305
Yiq
2.461
0.041
3.401
2.057
1.201
1.637
3.917
3.221
0.517
0.281
4.549
0.977
4.241
2.657
1.421
2.261
1.849
3.749
3.221
-0.203
0.517
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
7
26
15
19
9
21
17
12
30
0.436
4.217
2.028
2.824
0.834
3.222
2.426
1.431
5.013
0.930725
4.066851
2.75224
3.317209
1.531367
3.556409
3.05138
2.218927
4.408862
0.749
4.397
2.461
3.221
1.201
3.577
2.849
1.849
4.981
(0.7,0.8,0.5)
, (0.4,0.7)
0.35668
(0.7,0.8,0.5) 0.17834 (0.7,0.8,0.5
0.22314
,
0.11157 )
0.69315
(0.4,0.7)
0.34658 (0.4,0.7)
0.091629
0.45815
0.35668
0.17834
I
0.3
1.20397
0.3
0.60199 0.3
Logistics Items in this military formation
A Arsernal/Armoury D Bayonetted Riffle B Ammo
C Shell
E RPG
F GPMG
G Rocket Luncher
H Artillery/Bofors
I Damage coverage calculation/evaluation
3i
0.19928
0.03512
0.17028
0.11889
0.07438
0.23105
0.30543
0.11889
0.40132
Page 16
Implementability optimal value is the overall or cummulative delivery capability implementable by the network given
above.
Computations using methodology were conducted for the various AC and DC. The values of p(1),1 ,p(2),2 ,p(3),3 ,
from the table above were used in the analysis.
3.RESULT
Availability Capacity for p(1),1 :
A : AC1 = 0.55, pi(t) is proportion available at time t
BC: AC2 = 1 (1 0.9)(1 0.6) = 0.96
DEF: AC3 = 1 (1 0.7)(1 0.8)(1 0.5) = 0.97
G,H: AC4 = 1 (1 0.4)(1 0.7) = 0.72
(D,E,F),(G,H): AC5 = 1 (1 0.97)(1 0.72) = 0.9916
I: AC6= 0.3
AC5 = AC1.AC2.AC5.AC6 = 0.15707 15.71% , expendable available logistics.
Delivery Capability for p(1),1 :
A: MTTFA = MTTF1
=
= 1.67269, since I = -Inpit-1 is the supply/replenishment rates.
BC :MTTFB,c = MTTF2
Page 17
BC :MTTFB,c = MTTF2=
(4.86855) = 34.34648 4.86855 = 29.47799
= 28.47380 + 5.87268
DEF : MTTFD,E,F
=26.18405(8.44840) + 2.35682=
20.09247
GH : MTTFG,H=3.27407 + 8.4114 (2.35671) = 9.3285
DEF,GH : MTTFD,E,F,G,H = MTTF3 = 20.09247 + 9.3285 = 29.42097 ,where DEF = DEF = 0.00204,and GH = GH
= 0.03631
I : MTTI = MTTF4 =
= 2.49178
MTTFs =
= 71.4269
This DC is the Damage Capability of the Military Formation.
Table 6: Spectral Coefficients
yt
f() = Dw
f() Cos
f()Sin
120
24.276
y0
-12.138
21.024
240
32.518
y1
-16.259
-28.161
360
56.121
y2
56.121
0
total
112.915
27.724
-7.137
f() Cos2
-12.138
-16.259
56.121
27.724
f()Sin2
21.024
-28.161
0
-7.137
F(:D
w) = F2
D =I
w
0
120
240
360
480
i
1
2
3
30.897
41.387
71.427
-
h
1
2
3
24.276
32.518
56.121
112.915
p(i)
P(1)
P(2)
P(3)
112.240
48.553
56.794
112.240
48.553
217.587
Dw
24.276
32.518
56.121
112.915
24.277
24.276
56.119
Table 8 =DwVs I
F2
120
48.553
240
56.794
360
112.24
217.587
Very Poor
Very Poor
Very Poor
fh
1/3
1/3
1/3
ei
24.277
24.276
56.119
104.672
=34.891
I
0.2231
0.2610
0.5158
Ip
0.2231
0.2610
0.5158
Table 7 and 8 show that the Spectral derived model is not suitable for forecasting data on these tables. The values of I
also corroborate undependability of this model for forecasting because the values x 100% shows the level
implementable which are very low. The unsuitability of Fourier model warranted derivation of alternative model. The
derived alternative regression models are given below:
Page 18
Page 19
4.DISCUSSION
In the case of a single firer (example 1), a spectral model was derived whose pattern (graph) appears sinusoidal but
does not yield acceptable results. Even the implementability values are low and fluctuate stochastically. The AC are the
same for the three stages, because the respective AC at different stages are fixed, due to the assumed p(available
proportion that now stands as reliability). Whereas the DC varied according to the values of t, the stages of the system.
It was observed that as the stages increased decreased while the DC increased. This means that on the long run the
DC (damage capability) also increased even at lower rates of logistics supply. This is so because for all values of p>0,
however infinitesimal, a certain amount of damage would be recorded.
5.CONCLUSION
The results of damages to target by single firer and weapons system combat, were used to obtain implementability of
individual (dual) and group (indirect fire or weapons system) projects/programmes or tasks, with the aid of appropriate
pdf transformations. These derived models were used to determine the implementability as shown on Tables 1 and 8.
6.FURTHER RESEARCH
Further research can be carried out using various values of x,r,R, ,n p and to determine Dw, FAC and DC of systems.
REFERENCE
[1] Asalor, J.O. (1984) Comparison of availability of brakelights of Platform Vehicles on some roads in Nigeria and
Italy, Nigeria Engineer vol. 19, No 3 and 4.
[2] Barlor, R.E. and Proschan, F. (1975): Statistical Theory of Reliability and Life Testing HRW Inc. NY.
[3] Bartholomew, J., Forbes, A.F. and McCleans (1991): Statistical Techniques for Manpower Planning, John
Wiley & Sons, NY.
[4] De Lurgia, S.A. (1998): Forecasting Principles and Applications Irwin/McGraw Hill Co.
[5] Edward, E. Lees, F.P. (1973): Man Machine System Reliability, Man and Computer in Process Control.
[6] Feller, W. (1957): An Introduction to Probability Theory and Its Application 3rd Edition, John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., Vol. 1 and 2.
[7] Grigoria, M. (1979) Reliability of Active Parallel System, Journal of the Energy Division.
[8] Haribaskaran, G. (2005): Probability, Queuing Theory and Reliability Engineering, LAXMI
PUBLICATIONS (P) Ltd, New Delhi, India.
[9] Oladejo, M.O., Ovuworie, G.C. (2006): Adequacy of C3I Models for Training, NJISS, Vol. 6, No. 4, Oct.
[10] Oladejo, M.O. (2008): Redundancy Considerations In The Minimization of Manpower Wastages In The
Nigerian Navy General List, AJDS, Vol. 15.
[11] Oladejo, M.O. (1995): Some Development in Military Operations Analysis: Readiness, C3I, and Training,
PhD Thesis, Production Engineering Department, University of Benin.
[12] Oroge, C.O. (1991): Fundamentals of Reliability and Testing Methods (First Edition), Soji Press Ltd, Kaduna.
[13] Taylor J. Target Selection in Lanchester Combat: Linear-Law Attrition Process Naval Rea. Log. Quart.
20,673697. (1973).
[14] Taylor, Lanchester-type Model of Warfare and Optional Control, Naval Res, Log.Quart 21, 79-106 (1974).
[15] Taylor, Target Selection in Lanchester Combat: Heterogeneous Forces and Time-Dependent AttritionRate Coefficients, Naval Res.Log. Quart. 21 683-704 (1974).
Page 20